Re: Synchronous signal delivery..

[Jeff Garzik]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> 
>>Do we need new syscall(s) ?  Could it all be done with netlink ?
> 
> 
> We'd need the same new system call - the one to associate signals of this 
> process with the netlink thing.
> 
> (Yeah, the "system call" could be an ioctl entry, but quite frankly, 
> that's much WORSE than adding a system call. It's just system calls 
> without type checking).

I have been lobbying for sys_garzik(2) for years... while you're in 
there adding stuff, can you slip that in too please?

... :)

More seriously, and a bit of a tangent, I wonder how much attention we 
need to give netlink.  Because it either has the potential to be used as 
a de facto in-kernel event-passing API, or it's too heavyweight for 
that, implying [IMO] we need a netlink-lite.

I _don't_ want to see mini-netlinks springing up every time we need 
[a]sync <foo> delivery inside the kernel.

	Jeff